Let's Just Pretend, Like the French

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]lixy wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Don’t you think it’s difficult to speculate on something you know nothing about.

Here’s something that’s been bothering me for quite some time now, and I believe that you’re in a position to shed some light on that; Do US soldiers ever stop to think about why they are in Iraq? If so, please enlighten me as to what the dominating sentiment is. I’d appreciate it very much.

Thanks.

[/quote]

I have friends and friends of the family that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Army, Marines, officers, enlisted.

They all say the same thing. The average person wants us there. The average person is afraid of the jihadists. If we do not fight the jihadists there we will be fighting them here.

There are a few Muslims posting about Islam on T-Nation. They all seem to agree that there is a radical element in Islamic culture today that is perverting the religion for evil. They all seem to oppose it yet they offer no solutions. Just do nothing and hope it goes away.

42

[quote]lixy wrote:
Snipeout and hedo, here’s what my most recent post said;

I put myself in a US soldier’s position in Iraq. The guy has no clue what he’s fighting for. All moral values are therefore relegated and it becomes a fight for survival. In the hypothetical case that I’d be in their position, I’d very likely start shooting at everything that moves. It must be very hard on the nerves to not know where your enemy is and your survival instincts would probably kick in.

Granted, I have no military experience so it’s purely speculative. But is it that far from reality?

I didn’t mean to smear the whole US army core. I know that there are heaps of very courageous, idealistic and selfless people belonging to it but there are novices, criminals and scumbags too. To the best of my knowledge, the requirements for new recruits have never been lower.[/quote]

Yes it’s pretty far from reality.

The requirements for new recruits are quite a bit higher then they have ever been and the average US soldier is better educated and more highly trained then he ever was enabling him to train faster and operate complex weapons systems. All volunteers no conscripts.

43

[quote]lixy wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Point being, that just because you partake in American luxuries doesn’t mean you can’t hate the US and want to see it destroyed.

I think we all knew that already.

My concern is whether you preconise a preemptive attack and should I be worried? :slight_smile:

[/quote]

If you are in Sweden no don’t worry. If your in Iran yes worry a lot.

44

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Don’t you think it’s difficult to speculate on something you know nothing about.

Here’s something that’s been bothering me for quite some time now, and I believe that you’re in a position to shed some light on that; Do US soldiers ever stop to think about why they are in Iraq? If so, please enlighten me as to what the dominating sentiment is. I’d appreciate it very much.

Thanks.

I have friends and friends of the family that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Army, Marines, officers, enlisted.

They all say the same thing. The average person wants us there. The average person is afraid of the jihadists. If we do not fight the jihadists there we will be fighting them here.

There are a few Muslims posting about Islam on T-Nation. They all seem to agree that there is a radical element in Islamic culture today that is perverting the religion for evil. They all seem to oppose it yet they offer no solutions. Just do nothing and hope it goes away.[/quote]

Although I have no experience in Iraq or Afghanistan I can only relay my experiences in Bosnia and Kosovo as it applies to say Kosovar Albanians and Kosovar Serbs’. In the Serbian areas in Kosovo we were hated, although people wanted us there anyone associating with us was beaten or just “disappeared”. It is much worse in Iraq and Afghanistan from what I understand(through deployed friends). We only patrol areas we don’t live there. Once we leave the locals who cooperated have to deal with the jihadists, insurgents and the “elders”. Extensive cooperation can lead to their death as well as their families. By not doing anything they are taking the lesser of 2 evils, by speaking out or assisting us they are playing with their lives. As much as they want us there the people that don’t want us there have more control. I tihnk I’m getting off point… We can not fight the insrgents/jihadists with out help from locals. Locals are unwilling to help due to the consequences stated above. I firmly believe we must fight this movement which wishes to see the west exterminated. With out the average citizen there helping it’s going to take forever.
I equate it to gang related violence in the US. 50 people witness a banger murder someone, but nobody saw a thing. It’s all based out of fear for retaliation of what the gang(ie jihadists) will do as opposed to the police(our troops) who can not protect this witness(local villager) in the projects(iraq).
These people are all the same(bangers and jihadists) they win through fear of consequences and we(police and troops)do not have the option of fear and such.

45

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They all say the same thing. The average person wants us there. The average person is afraid of the jihadists. If we do not fight the jihadists there we will be fighting them here.[/quote]

Thanks for the reply. I actually have means to know what the average guy thinks in Iraq. I’m more curious about what the US soldiers think. Don’t they get confused about having to clean up a mess they created in the first place? And do they discuss such things amongst themselves?

46

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They all say the same thing. The average person wants us there. The average person is afraid of the jihadists. If we do not fight the jihadists there we will be fighting them here.

Thanks for the reply. I actually have means to know what the average guy thinks in Iraq. I’m more curious about what the US soldiers think. Don’t they get confused about having to clean up a mess they created in the first place? And do they discuss such things amongst themselves?[/quote]

To relate my experience in Kosovo as an example alot of the time my mission was to patrol cities and enforce the laws, main supply route security and convoy security. We all looked at it like our job. No one really openly spoke about it. We woke up at 4pm to hit the road at 6pm for 12 hours a day 7 days a week. At the end my team was attached to a special operations group and we worked clsoely with the other government agencies to track down weapons dealers and dealing with the human slave trade market(ie prostitutes kidnapped from other countries). We felt like we were making a difference and I think that alot of these troops feel as though they are making some sort of difference. The look on the face of one helpless person you help save or make their life better is all some people need to continue to do their job. The military is an all voluntary force, you know the possibilities you sign up for. Most of these young men and women want to make a difference.
As for the mess they created, that place was a mess way before they got their. Now its an equal opportunity mess. The once ruling minority Sunni Baathists at least don’t oppress the majority they are fighting for equality when it comes to representation and ruling parties.

47

[quote]hedo wrote:
The requirements for new recruits are quite a bit higher then they have ever been and the average US soldier is better educated and more highly trained then he ever was enabling him to train faster and operate complex weapons systems. All volunteers no conscripts.[/quote]

From the American sources I read, I was under the impression that it was going down the drain. But, I’ll take your word as you’re evidently more knowledgeable than me in these issues.

How about this? Gratuitous slander?
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10969
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/desperate-military-recruits-addicts-and-criminals_730.html

48

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Although I have no experience in Iraq or Afghanistan I can only relay my experiences in Bosnia and Kosovo as it applies to say Kosovar Albanians and Kosovar Serbs’.[/quote]

Thanks for sharing.

Godspeed.

I’m afraid it’s never gonna happen. The bulk will always see you as an occupation army. They’ve been under British rule before and lost their access to the sea because of that. Judging that and the rate at which people die around there, they can’t possibly think any good will come out of this occupation.

Al-Qaeda doesn’t need training camps anymore. It’s irrelevant now. Ben-Laden successfully sparked a global struggle between Islamic fanatics and everyone else. Every fundamentalist around the world is a potential enemy to our safety and you can’t possibly go around invading countries to catch every last one of them. Because in the process of doing so, you end up creating a lot more than you had at the start. By any interpretation, there are now many folds as many potential suicide bombers as they were under the invasion.

You can’t defeat somebody who would gladly give away his life. I’m afraid it was a lost cause from day one.

Would changing US policy towards, say Israel, remove the terrorist threat? Probably not; But it sure would substantially reduce their number.

49

I don’t think changing our stance towards our strongest ally is even plausible. America is not about appeasing and bending to the terrorists will(see Spain and most of Europe).

50

[quote]snipeout wrote:
I don’t think changing our stance towards our strongest ally is even plausible.[/quote]

I know. But don’t mistake that for a choice. The pro-Israeli lobby in Washington is so powerful, it’ll never allow anything like that.

And I won’t go into the USS liberty and other such horrors…

Anywho, I was thinking more along the lines of threatening to cut the billions and billions of dollars you send to them if their government don’t follow UN resolution 242. Unconditional support for an unlawful country is bringing you nothing but enemies.

Do you have any idea of the number of vetoes you used against every single UNSC resolution critical of Israel. Look at the pattern; How many countries do you see voting against?

Your credibility on the international scene is going down the drain. I normally wouldn’t care except that you have the most powerful military in the world and have bases all around the globe. You losing credibility is a threat to world’s peace.

Agreed. It’s about using terrorist attacks as pretexts to fulfill an imperialist agenda. it’s highly disrespectful for the lives of the victims.

That was uncalled for…forget I said that.

51

[quote]lixy wrote:
snipeout wrote:
I don’t think changing our stance towards our strongest ally is even plausible.

I know. But don’t mistake that for a choice. The pro-Israeli lobby in Washington is so powerful, it’ll never allow anything like that.

And I won’t go into the USS liberty and other such horrors…

Anywho, I was thinking more along the lines of threatening to cut the billions and billions of dollars you send to them if their government don’t follow UN resolution 242. Unconditional support for an unlawful country is bringing you nothing but enemies.

Do you have any idea of the number of vetoes you used against every single UNSC resolution critical of Israel. Look at the pattern; How many countries do you see voting against?

Your credibility on the international scene is going down the drain. I normally wouldn’t care except that you have the most powerful military in the world and have bases all around the globe. You losing credibility is a threat to world’s peace.

America is not about appeasing and bending to the terrorists will(see Spain and most of Europe).

Agreed. It’s about using terrorist attacks as pretexts to fulfill an imperialist agenda. it’s highly disrespectful for the lives of the victims.

That was uncalled for…forget I said that.[/quote]

If we had an imperialistic agenda do you think the middle east would have any control over oil? You do realize after we gave them the technology to unearth the oil we allowed them to become the cartel known as OPEC. If we really had an “imperialistic agenda” don’t you think we’d have a major handle on oil?

52

[quote]snipeout wrote:
You do realize after we gave them the technology to unearth the oil we allowed them to become the cartel known as OPEC.[/quote]

How nice of you to allow them…

Geopolitics are not as simplistic as you make them appear. A very interesting read on the subject of “how your oil got under their sands” would be:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2005.00151.x?cookieSet=1

Anyway, I think we hijacked the thread about the horrible French people. We should probably get back on track…

53

[quote]hedo wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
It’s indeed outrageous. Yet, I fear this is but a taste of what the liberties in France will endure if Sarkozy is elected next month.

Anyway, this reminded me of the US convoy in Afghanistan that was attacked by a suicide bomber on Sunday. The US troops responded by what was described as “panic fire”, killing many civilians in the process. The journalists present were ordered to delete any pictures and videos they shot of the scene. One of them was told by a US soldier to “delete them [the pictures] or we will delete you”.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/03/04/afghan_media_us_troops_deleted_images/

Panic fire is what Arabs or other poorly trained soldiers do…like celebrating a wedding by shooting into the air. Have to be an idiot to think that’s a good idea don’t you?

Well trained troops return fire or initiate fire towards enemy combatants. You wouldn’t know that but that’s how it works.

Do you ever post anything that doesn’t have an anti-american message to it. Just curious…you’re getting kind of boring. Better yet perhaps it’s time to add you to the “why bother list” since the message never changes.

Ok, so let’s pretend, that’s the title of the thread isn’t it, so let’s pretend it wasn’t panic fire, because regular US troops don’t panic, so it couldn’t be panic fire. That’s fair.

Since it wasn’t panic fire, it must have been “return fire or initiate fire towards enemy combatants”.

Therefore, the logical assumption would be that all these “innocent bystanders” weren’t innocent civilians at all. They would have to be enemy combatants.

But I have just one question for you.

What if the exact same thing happened, the exact same situation.

With only one difference.

The soldiers were Arabs.

Or worse.

They were French.

And how would that impact on the status of the innocent bystanders? Would they still be considered “enemy combatants” ? ? ?

Yes. Pakistani peackeepers or Indian troops, or the French in a peacekeeping mission. Armies generally considered well trained, would probably react in the same way. Ambush soldiers in a combat zone and you will get shot. Stand around to watch it and you might also catch a stray bullet.

Because they are Americans is the only reason your kind rallies against them.

[/quote]

Wow, just wow.

Just being shot by a soldier makes you an enemy combatant.

It’s that simple.

Of course HH agrees. That should tell you something. And another moron chimes in with “you’re anti-American.”

No more “innocent bystanders”. No more “collatoral damage”. That’s all taken care off.

Just being killed by a soldier makes yu an enemy combatant.

And also, our hero’s lay suppressng fire and the other guys fire in panic.
Talking about believing your own propaganda. Wasn’t that how you guys got caught in this mess in the first place?

54

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
It’s indeed outrageous. Yet, I fear this is but a taste of what the liberties in France will endure if Sarkozy is elected next month.

Anyway, this reminded me of the US convoy in Afghanistan that was attacked by a suicide bomber on Sunday. The US troops responded by what was described as “panic fire”, killing many civilians in the process. The journalists present were ordered to delete any pictures and videos they shot of the scene. One of them was told by a US soldier to “delete them [the pictures] or we will delete you”.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/03/04/afghan_media_us_troops_deleted_images/

Panic fire is what Arabs or other poorly trained soldiers do…like celebrating a wedding by shooting into the air. Have to be an idiot to think that’s a good idea don’t you?

Well trained troops return fire or initiate fire towards enemy combatants. You wouldn’t know that but that’s how it works.

Do you ever post anything that doesn’t have an anti-american message to it. Just curious…you’re getting kind of boring. Better yet perhaps it’s time to add you to the “why bother list” since the message never changes.

Ok, so let’s pretend, that’s the title of the thread isn’t it, so let’s pretend it wasn’t panic fire, because regular US troops don’t panic, so it couldn’t be panic fire. That’s fair.

Since it wasn’t panic fire, it must have been “return fire or initiate fire towards enemy combatants”.

Therefore, the logical assumption would be that all these “innocent bystanders” weren’t innocent civilians at all. They would have to be enemy combatants.

But I have just one question for you.

What if the exact same thing happened, the exact same situation.

With only one difference.

The soldiers were Arabs.

Or worse.

They were French.

And how would that impact on the status of the innocent bystanders? Would they still be considered “enemy combatants” ? ? ?

Yes. Pakistani peackeepers or Indian troops, or the French in a peacekeeping mission. Armies generally considered well trained, would probably react in the same way. Ambush soldiers in a combat zone and you will get shot. Stand around to watch it and you might also catch a stray bullet.

Because they are Americans is the only reason your kind rallies against them.

Wow, just wow.

Just being shot by a soldier makes you an enemy combatant.

It’s that simple.

Of course HH agrees. That should tell you something. And another moron chimes in with “you’re anti-American.”

No more “innocent bystanders”. No more “collatoral damage”. That’s all taken care off.

Just being killed by a soldier makes yu an enemy combatant.

And also, our hero’s lay suppressng fire and the other guys fire in panic.
Talking about believing your own propaganda. Wasn’t that how you guys got caught in this mess in the first place?[/quote]

You asked the question shithead. Shut the fuck up if you don’t want an answer.

Yeah if you want to stand and watch American soldiers get ambushed you’ll probably get shot. Same with any Army. Not that you would know, your a rotund Belgian not exactly fit for war.

Read and comprehend before you respond asswipe and maybe, if you do that, and change your name people will stop mocking you.

Go have another piece of pastry it’s the weekend.